In a significant legal development, the former FBI director, James Comey, has sought to dismiss his criminal case, alleging that it is based on ‘vindictive and selective’ prosecution. His legal team has filed a motion with a federal judge, claiming that the indictment is rooted in Trump’s personal vendetta and the government’s unlawful appointments, which they argue are unconstitutional. The defense argues that the indictment is a ‘nullity’ due to these violations and requests its dismissal with prejudice to deter future unlawful government conduct.
Comey’s legal team has provided a detailed 50-page filing outlining the strained relationship between Trump and Comey, as well as Trump’s public criticisms and attacks on the former FBI director. They highlight that much of the evidence against Comey has come from Trump himself, or other administration officials, further supporting their claim of selective prosecution. The motion also challenges the recent appointment of Lindsey Halligan, Trump’s former personal lawyer, as the acting U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, which they argue was made just three days before Comey’s indictment. The defense claims that Halligan’s invalid appointment renders the indictment null and void, necessitating its dismissal.
Trump’s administration had ordered the Justice Department to prosecute Comey following his re-election, as per the defense’s argument, citing personal spite and Comey’s frequent criticism of Trump’s conduct in office. The legal team asserts that Trump’s actions, including the forced resignation of the interim U.S. attorney, were a direct attempt to achieve justice against Comey. The filing notes that, when no career prosecutor would carry out these orders, Trump publicly pressured the Attorney General to effectuate ‘justice’ against Comey. This, the defense argues, constitutes a profound constitutional violation and an abuse of power.
The motion outlines the requirement for Comey to provide evidence to the court that prosecutors acted with genuine animus toward him and that he would not have been prosecuted without that animus. The legal team’s challenge to the indictment reflects a broader concern about the potential for political influence in the judicial process, highlighting the need for impartiality and adherence to constitutional standards. The ongoing legal battle underscores the complexities and implications of prosecuting public officials, especially in cases where political motivations may be perceived as influencing the legal process.
This is a developing news story. Check back shortly for updates.